site banner
nopie  1yr ago (vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com)   Edited 1yr ago   3298 thread views

Cochrane review is out and masks have weak evidence that they are not effective

vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com

This one is against rationalists because when Scott wrote his review that masks could be effective many of us trusted it.

I don't blame Scott for failing this one because doing review of hundreds of studies is hard and one person can hardly do it. But this clearly shows that rationalist way of thinking has no special formula, they can be easily mistaken and fall by accepting general consensus just like any other person.

I was impressed when Scott did his review about masks. I trusted it because there was no other clear evidence available. Cochrane hadn't done its review yet and NICE guidelines were silent on the issue. We vaguely knew from previous studies that masks are not effective, The WHO had said so. Suddenly everyone flipped and it was not because the evidence had changed. We simply wanted to believe that masks work and we mocked those who said “no evidence that masks help”.

Even with the belief that masks work, I never wanted mask mandates. I preferred recommendations only, so that no one was penalized or prohibited entry, travel etc if one doesn't want to wear mask. Scott unwillingly had been a catalyst for governments to introduce mask mandates and all this heavy handed approach has been for nothing.

Now we are back to square one, the evidence about masks is weak and it does not support their use even in hospital settings. We can all reflect now what happened in between during these 2 or 3 years. When I realized that Scott's review is clearly insufficient as evidence, I asked some doctors if they have any better evidence that masks work. Instead of getting answer I was told not to be silly, parachutes don't need RCTs and accused me of being covid denier for nor reason. Many so-called experts were making the same mistake as Scott by looking at the issue too emotionally. It is time to get back to reality and admit that it was a mistake and we should have judged the issue with more rational mind.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Combine that with the 'low adherence', and I continue to believe that 'wearing N95s rigorously probably reduces risk of respiratory illnesses' and 'rigorously wearing N95s may have been a good move during the pandemic if you're old/immunocompromised/etc'

The default scientific position is that they do nothing until proven otherwise. You can believe they work if you want, but there is no evidence that they do for something like COVID so it is very much a belief and not an evidence-based claim. Low adherence might be a factor in RCTs, but the majority of people in places like South Korea wear KF94s (with 99.9% of the population masked in public in some form) and they had more cases per capita in the span of two months than the US has had during the entire pandemic.

I don't understand why supposed "rationalists" cling to something with no evidence like this. Why do you think they weren't recommended prior to COVID? Masks are not a new invention. Hell, you could be fined $100,000 for claiming they would protect people from SARS because people knew how irresponsible it was to say that.

Rationalist does not mean 'you must assemble your beliefs from meta-analyses'. Meta-analyses are wrong sometimes.

but the majority of people in places like South Korea wear KF94s (with 99.9% of the population masked in public in some form) and they had more cases per capita in the span of two months than the US has had during the entire pandemic.

99.9% is too high, and anyway if 50% of people weir KF94s in public but not at home, and kf94s are 100% effective, the cloth masks still do not work, so the cloth half instantly gets it and spreads it to the other half. There is also a difference between 'properly wearing n95s significantly reduce your risk of getting an airborne disease' and 'n95s are enough to prevent a pandemic'.

Why do you think they weren't recommended prior to COVID

There was a whole dance about how the mainstream took too long to recognize covid was airborne, and therefore were wrong and stupid.

It should be uncontroversial that Koreans are much much more likely to wear plausibly effective K-94/N-95 masks than Americans though; which being the case means that the fact that COVID was able to spread way faster there than at any point in the US bears significant explaining?

99.9% is probably closer to the truth than 99%. Even in Thailand (where I'm based) for most of the pandemic you saw virtually no one unmasked, even outside. The argument that not enough people wore them does not apply in Asia.

N95s might work if you have it professionally fitted, but given the number of healthcare workers that ended up catching COVID at work I doubt they're that effective either. I think we fundamentally don't understand how COVID spreads.

Our best guess is that COVID is essentially airborne, but being airborne is precisely why masks don't work. The aerosol just leaks out of any gaps between the mask and the face... or with cloth masks, probably directly through the mask itself. If COVID was spread by large droplets, like people coughing or sneezing on each other, then yes masks might have been effective. But given that there's no difference between places that wore them and places that didn't, it's pretty reasonable to say that they are not getting to the root of the problem.

Personally I think it's airborne so easily leaking out of masks, and that it's also infecting people via their eyes as much as their nose/mouth

Even if 99.9% were wearing cloth masks, cloth masks do literally nothing on a population basis!

In Thailand I'd say it's about 60% surgical mask, 40% KF94s or similar. I think Korea's ratio is the other way around

Rationality is actually about understanding the hierarchy of evidence strength. Yes, meta-analyses can be wrong too, but in this case Cochrane report is pretty solid. Even though it is not definitive, it makes no sense to reject it and value some anecdotal cases or even lab based evidence as higher evidence.

Using that logic, do you think handwashing prevents covid? From the review:

SARS‐CoV‐2 [is] considered to be predominantly spread via respiratory particles of varying size or contact routes, or both (WHO 2020c). Data from studies of SARS‐CoV‐2 contamination of the environment based on the presence of viral ribonucleic acid and infectious virus suggest significant fomite contamination (Lin 2022; Onakpoya 2022b; Ong 2020; Wu 2020). Hand hygiene would be expected to be beneficial in reducing the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 similar to other beta coronaviruses (SARS‐CoV‐1, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and human coronaviruses), which are very susceptible to the concentrations of alcohol commonly found in most hand‐sanitiser preparations (Rabenau 2005; WHO 2020c). Support for this effect is the finding that poor hand hygiene, despite the use of full personal protective equipment (PPE), was independently associated with an increased risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission to healthcare workers in a retrospective cohort study in Wuhan, China in both a high‐risk and low‐risk clinical unit for patients infected with COVID‐19 (Ran 2020). The practice of hand hygiene appears to have a consistent effect in all settings, and should be an essential component of other interventions.

The general overview states: Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low‐certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity.

Covid as such is basically over now but respiratory illnesses remain. 11% is not much but it is at least something.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats